An early GNAT - effects on the Battle of the Atlantc?

Less than you might think. USN doctrine was to rely mainly on torpedoes, not guns (unlike the Germans).[/QUOTE]

Might be problematic with the given status of quality of US torpedoes in the first half of the Pacific War. More than half of the torpedoes simply failed to do what they were designed for and that is excluding the ones failing completely to run at all. (Some even sank their own launchingplatform) Only as far as mid 1944, the torpedoproblem was solved, meaning in the times between Pearl harbor and half 1944, the USN subs had to use poor quality torpeodes and mostly had to use guns against single sailing targets, such as small cargoships, frequently used by the Japanese to run between islands.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
And yet, historically, they did not let them pass. A loaded barge may be more important than an empty freighter. A lowly picket boat had great significance in the outcome of the Doolittle raid, well out of proportion to its tonnage. There was no doctrine of minimum tonnage to be attacked in the US Navy. No target too small. It's written up in the action reports, if you don't believe me. Nobody would make a movie about a sub attacking a barge, but it was part of the job, and it had to be done. You can't limit yourself to just the "glorious" jobs.

I saw a picture a few years back of a pathetic little boat sunk by the USN near China in 1944 or 1945. It was basically a wooden fishing vessel moving 3 Japanese soldiers. If you have seen the movie "Old man and the Sea", it is about that size. The reason we have a picture is the crew took the men prisoners. Earlier in the war, the 3 soldiers and one Chinese fisherman just die.
 
And yet, historically, they did not let them pass. A loaded barge may be more important than an empty freighter. A lowly picket boat had great significance in the outcome of the Doolittle raid, well out of proportion to its tonnage. There was no doctrine of minimum tonnage to be attacked in the US Navy. No target too small. It's written up in the action reports, if you don't believe me. Nobody would make a movie about a sub attacking a barge, but it was part of the job, and it had to be done. You can't limit yourself to just the "glorious" jobs.
Where did I say, or even so much as imply, the Sub Force "let them pass"? I do know guns were used on barges, schooners, junks, & lighters. (I've only read Silent Victory nine times, after all.)

Neither did I anywhere suggest, nor so much as imply, the Sub Force was "limiting itself to the 'glorious' jobs".
More than half of the torpedoes simply failed to do what they were designed for and that is excluding the ones failing completely to run at all.
AFAIK, there was never a case of a total failure. There were some "hot runs" in tubes. The exploder failure rate, often quoted at 70%, is a bit exaggerated in practise, but could (sometimes) run that high: it wasn't always.
Some even sank their own launchingplatform
There were, IIRC, two confirmed cases & a couple of suspected ones. (Some boats that just disappeared may've suffered this. Tang, which you may know of, was from a Mark XVIII, not a Mark XIV, so it doesn't count.)
Only as far as mid 1944, the torpedoproblem was solved
Sorry, it was September '43, late enough, to be sure.:eek:
mostly had to use guns against single sailing targets, such as small cargoships
As already said, guns were, in the main, used against much smaller targets, or to polish off cripples. I'm unaware of even a single case where a torpedo-worthy target was sunk by guns alone instead. (There may be one; I don't recall it.)
 
Top